God’s word is truth, and Christians are called upon to defend it. As salt and light, Christians exercise a “prophetic voice,” calling to repentance our neighborhoods and nation. Most of us have small platforms from which we speak, but we address our little corner of the world, exposing sin and pointing others to salvation in Jesus Christ. When we do we can expect backlash from a stubborn world.
I’ve had non-Christians accuse Christians of “picking on” homosexuals and “worrying about” abortion, when we should be focusing on the economy and terrorism. Such criticisms overlook (purposefully?) why conservative Christians so stubbornly reject these practices. Our world is hell bent in support of homosexuality and abortion, supporting these sins with all the vigor of an early 20th century suffragette. Thus conservative Christians see these things as greater social and moral threats, and we dig in our heals in opposition. On the other hand few people defend, let alone encourage, “economic oppression” or Boston bombings, so Christians are relatively less fervent in resisting them. But if vocal and well funded advocacy groups clamored for the rights of terror bombers, claiming their evil was good, joined in their crusade by powerful medical, legal, and educational forces, we would speak out in virulent protest. So it’s not that conservative Christians are fixated on abortion and homosexuality, we’re merely fighting a fire stoked by forces that applaud the flames.
Unless of course you are a member of the “new spirituality.” To them the fire is a cause for celebration. Recently I posted an essay entitled If It Doesnt’ Matter, Why Does It Matter?“ There I addressed a Huffington Post piece by Steve McSwain, who advised the church on six things we need to stop saying. My primary purpose in that post was to show how inclusive, pluralistic religious tolerance offered by the new spirituality is ultimately self contradictory. Today I want to look more specifically at one of those things which, according to McSwain, conservative Christians should stop saying: Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle and it is a sin against God.
There is no doubt the political and religious left pushes for social acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual marriage. The reasons are varied, but when professing Christians do so we expect them to make their case on biblical grounds. Traditionally Christians have understood texts such as Genesis 19:1-25, Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26-27, and others, as clear prohibitions of, to say it bluntly, sodomy. If the Scripture texts warrant acceptance of homosexual behavior, then the burden of proof is on those who would claim Christianity and homosexual sex are compatible. Attempts at reconciling same sex relationships with the biblical witness have met with little success. Honest analysis of the above texts reveals the traditional interpretations are correct. But though some advocates of homosexual behavior or SSM may or may not be sincere in their respect for Scripture, they at least went through the motions of basing their opinions on biblical grounds.
This has changed, which takes us back to Steve McSwain. Why does he believe the church should stop saying homosexuality is a sin? Because
This one issue, my friend, is on the outs. If you don’t know that, you are more blind than the Republicans were in the last election. They misinterpreted the political environment and so completely blew it when it came to getting their candidate elected. And you, my friend, are misinterpreting the moral, spiritual and religious environment — and the changes that are coming…You can still revere the Bible, my friend, but move beyond the prejudice of Paul or anyone else. You don’t need to make Saint Paul infallible to treat the Bible as important.
Notice how McSwain makes no attempt to defend his view on biblical grounds. On the contrary, in the last two sentences he tacitly acknowledges Paul’s prohibition of homosexual behavior. He just doesn’t like it. Sure we can still treat the Bible as important even if Paul were fallible, but how important is it if we can simply reject what we don’t like with cavalier abandon? Denying the authority of Scripture, McSwain drops any pretext regarding it’s truth like a warm cow pie.
On what grounds then should the church embrace homosexual behavior? Pragmatism, pure and simple. The traditional opinion on homosexuality “is on the outs,” and we should discard it based on political expediency. If we expect to be relevant we’d best hold up a wet finger, determine the direction in which the prevailing cultural winds are blowing, then sail along with the rest of the world, as though public opinion and political reality – not Scripture – determine our moral standards.
Recently Rob Bell took a similar stand. As reported in The Blaze he endorsed homosexual marriage for the same reasons McSwain does. Regarding those who affirm the sinfulness of homosexual marriage he said
“I think we are witnessing the death of a particular subculture that doesn’t work. I think there is a very narrow, politically intertwined, culturally ghettoized, Evangelical subculture that was told ‘we’re gonna change the thing’ and they haven’t…And they actually have turned away lots of people. And i (sic) think that when you’re in a part of a subculture that is dying, you make a lot more noise because it’s very painful. You sort of die or adapt” (emphasis mine).
What could be more clear? According to the new spirituality, we should accommodate ourselves and our message to the prevailing cultural climate and embrace “what works.” We should proclaim a message palatable to the world so as to save ourselves from irrelevancy. We should reject biblical teaching and tell the world what it wants to hear, not what it needs to hear. We should affirm what the world all ready believes, and reject what God wants them to believe. We should deny the authority of God and His word, and compromise Divine revelation to avoid being offensive.
What if Jesus would have done that? Perhaps He misinterpreted His political and religious environment. Maybe He should have adapted his message to the prevailing social climate. Rather than call sinners to repentance, He could have accommodated His message to cultural realities. “Go and sin no more” (John 8:1-11)? How much more narrow and sexually repressive could one be? Sheesh!
The Apostle Paul too, should have not challenged the idolatry of the Roman Empire, but affirmed the melting pot of religious ideas, and encouraged a non threatening tolerance and inclusiveness. He really was too hard on those poor Corinthians, telling them to quit sleeping around and all. Who is Paul to judge? After all, he’s not infallible. Wouldn’t those to whom he ministered have been more prone to listen if he’d have affirmed them right where they were?
And Amos, Jeremiah, and the rest of those intolerant bigots in the Old Testament, who swam against the social and political tide. Why rebuke oppression, idolatry, and godlessness? How much more relevant they’d have been if they’d adorned their message with platitudes about love and diversity. Their cries against the “sins” of their day were merely the noises made by those from a dying subculture. They’d have saved themselves a lot of frustration if they’d have gone with the flow and preached “what works.” After all, if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.
So according to McSwain, Bell and their ilk, we adapt or die. But as Old Testament Israel (and modern day liberal Christian denominations) shows, the reality is adapt AND die. When Israel embraced the worldview of her surrounding cultures, she invited moral and spiritual collapse and finally God’s judgment. This is certainly the fate of the church if it denies biblical authority and proclaims a tolerant, lukewarm pablum. We are not called to compete with the world, we are to compete against the world, proclaiming a message contrary to the desires of the sinful heart. By seeking the world’s applause, we don’t become relevant, but irrelevant. What purpose do we fulfill by telling the world what it all ready knows, and affirm what it all ready believes?
The biblical message is one of repentance not politically correct affirmation, and those attempting to make the gospel inoffensive by denying it or watering it down misrepresent and undermine it. By definition the gospel is an “offense,” a “stumbling block,” and “foolishness” (I Corinthians 1:18-25, I Peter 2:4-8). Jesus came not bringing peace but a sword (Matthew 10:34-36). Thus we preach what is true whether it “works” or not. We hope to make friends through our message, but we preach the gospel even if we make enemies in doing so. If we seek to make the gospel palatable to lost world by affirming what the Bible calls sin, we offer no hope and no salvation. Denying the gospel only makes us “useful idiots” for those advancing a godless worldview, who will always hate us no matter what we say . Notice the words of a lesbian who understands what’s at stake:
To those of you who would change the church to accept the gay community and its lifestyle: you give us no hope at all. To those of us who know God’s word and will not dilute it to fit our desires, we ask you to read John’s letter to the church in Pergamum. “I have a few things against you: You have people there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin by eating food sacrificed to idols and by committing sexual immorality. Likewise, you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Repent therefore!” You are willing to compromise the word of God to be politically correct. We are not deceived. If we accept your willingness to compromise, then we must also compromise. We must therefore accept your lying, your adultery, your lust, your idolatry, your addictions, YOUR sins. “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”
We do not ask for your acceptance of our sins any more than we accept yours. We simply ask for the same support, love, guidance, and most of all hope that is given to the rest of your congregation. We are your brothers and sisters in Christ. We are not what we shall be, but thank God, we are not what we were. Let us work together to see that we all arrive safely home.
This woman gets it. The gospel delivers from sin, and if we dilute the message out of concern for being chic and popular, we ultimately must accept all sin and thereby deny hope to everyone. Put another way, if we deny the issue of sin (whither it’s homosexual behavior, adultery, gossip, stealing, greed, pride, selfishness, etc.; you fill in the blank) then there’s no need for a Savior, and Jesus and the church are as useless and irrelevant as training wheels on a rowboat.
We must obey the command to proclaim Jesus Christ as Savior, not accommodating Him to the world, but calling the world to repent and believe on His terms. If a ship is sinking, we do the passengers no favors by telling them it’s a good day for a swim. And we do a lost world no favors if while they are headed for hell, we tell them sin is passé, God celebrates diversity, and Jesus affirms you in whatever you do. On the contrary we must keep the focus where the Bible keeps the focus – on Jesus Christ: Savior, Master, and Lord. The one who died and rose again that sinners of all stripes can believe on Him, repent of their sin, and receive forgiveness, mercy, and eternal life. If we preach anything else we deny the faith, having abandoned our post in the heat of battle, and God will pronounce ichabod over us.
